Ecol. Vunerability. JIBRIN, A. et al.pdf

Ecological Vulnerability Assessment of Kpashimi Forest Reserve

1. Ecological Vulnerability Assessment of
Kpashimi Forest Reserve and Surrounding
Parkland Area in Niger State, Nigeria

By
Abdullahi Jibrin, Abdulhamed Adamu Ibrahim and
Aishetu Abdulkadir


2015 International Conference & 29
th
Annual General
Meeting of the Nigerian Meteorological Society, Held 23
rd
–
26
th
November, 2015, at Department of Geography, Usmanu
Danfodiyo University, Sokoto, Nigeria.

2. INTRODUCTION

Scientific evidence indicates that forest ecosystems
are highly vulnerable to climate change impacts.

Nigeria’s forest and savannah ecosystems are no
exception, while details are still lacking.

Ecosystems are life support systems.

The need for mitigation and adaptation is quite
imperative.

Yet, there is inadequate information on the actual
ecological vulnerability of ecosystems in Nigeria.

3. INTRODUCTION Contn’d

Vulnerability is the degree to which:
• a system is susceptible to, and
• unable to cope with,
• adverse effects of climate change, including
climate variability and extremes (IPCC, 2007).

Ecological vulnerability assessment is a risk
assessment process.

ecological vulnerability as a function of
exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity.

Ecological resilience.

4. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Adapted from: IPCC, 2007

5. STATEMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEM
Available data on climate change impacts are
mainly global whereas the effects are more at local
levels.
Jibrin (2009; 2013; and 2014) studied deforestation
and forest degradation in the Kpashimi forest
reserve. However, reliable information is lacking on
the ecological vulnerability of the forest reserve;
while it is exposed to climate change stressors.

6. AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The aim of the study is to examine the ecological
vulnerability of Kpashimi forest reserve to climate
change.
The objectives of the study were to:
determine the degree of exposure to climate change
impact;
determine the level of sensitivity to climate change
impact; and
determine the strength of adaptive capacity of Kpashimi
forest reserve and surrounding parkland area in Niger
state to climate change.

7. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The assessment of ecological vulnerability enables
us to ascertain the potential ecological problem and
to stimulate eco-environment protection.

It is crucial for identifying adaptation needs.

For avoiding the worst possible consequences of
climate change.

For detecting locations and ecosystems, in which
investments in adaptation and ecosystem
management can produce the biggest returns.

8. STUDY AREA







Figure 1: Relief and Drainage system of Kpashimi forest reserve.

9. STUDY AREA Contn’d
Site: Kpashimi Forest Reserve in Niger State, Nigeria and the surrounding nine Nupe
ethnic communities comprising of Nassarawa, Fapo, Gulu, Lafian Kpada, Makeri, Kunko,
Lafian zago, Zago, and Mayaki.

Location :latitude 8
o
40ʹ to 8
o
52 ʹ North and longitude 6
o
39 ʹ to 6
o
49 ʹ East

land area :213.101 square kilometres,

Climate: tropical hinterland (wet and dry season; coded as ‘Aw’ by Koppen’s)

Mean annual rainfall is about 1, 400 mm

Mean annual temperature is about 28
o
C (Ojo, 1977).

Relief: sedimentary rock, nearly levelled terrain, dotted by flat topped hills that rise as high
as 600 meters. Generally, about 500 meters above sea level

Soil types: ferruginous tropical soils, on deeply weathered basement complex rocks and
sandstones and hydromorphic soils.

Vegetation : Southern Guinea Savanna (woodland savannah)

10. METHODS

Ecological Survey (ES) and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
The questionnaire and semi-structured interviews.
Sampling Design
Given estimated population of about 30,000, the sample size was determined by
using the formula of Yamane, (1967).
Where:
n =
Sample Size; N = Population size; 1 = Constant e = The level of precision (0.05)



This generated a sample size of 395. Each of the nine communities was considered
as a cluster and an equal number of 44 questionnaires were administered randomly
in each community.

Analysis of survey data used a 5- point likert scale statistical technique, with
categories as follows: (5 = very high, 4 = high, 3 = moderate, 2 = low and 1 = very
low.
????????????=
????????????
1+????????????(????????????)
2

11. METHODS Contn’d
????????????????????????????????????=
????????????????????????????????????−????????????????????????????????????(????????????????????????????????????)
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????−????????????????????????????????????(????????????????????????????????????)




????????????????????????????????????=
????????????????????????????????????(????????????????????????????????????)−????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????−????????????????????????????????????(????????????????????????????????????)




????????????????????????=
∑????????????????????????????????????
????????????
+∑????????????????????????????????????
????????????
????????????

Where:
Xij = normalized score for
observed values of positively related
indicators
Yij = normalized score for
observed values of negatively
related indicators
Min = minimum indicator value
Max = maximum indicator value
VI = Component Vulnerability
index
K = indicators
The IPCC-IV vulnerability assessment framework

????????????????????????????????????????????????−????????????????????????=????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????−????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????×????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Where:
IPCC-VI= IPCC Vulnerability Index
E
index = Exposure index
AC
index = Adaptive Capacity index
S
index = Sensitivity index

Scaling from -1 to +1 indicating low to high
vulnerability

12. RESULTS

Component S.
No
Indicator F.R. Indicator
Index
Component
Index
EXPOSURE
1 Delay in rainy season onset + 0.418
0.387
2 Decreasing amount of annual rainfall + 0.181
3 Erratic rainfall pattern + 0.842
4 Heavy and long periods of rainfall + 0.172
5 Early rains followed by dry weeks + 0.574
6 Uncertainty in the onset and end of rainy season + 0.712
7 Increasing length of dry season + 0.301
8 Increasing incidence of drought + 0.010
9 Increasing temperature + 0.971
10 Increasing thunderstorm and strong winds + 0.220
11 Overflowing of stream and river in the rainy season + 0.435
12 Increasing cases of flooding incidence + 0.441
13 Increasing rate of soil erosion + 0.327
14 Decrease in soil moisture + 0.052
15 Unpredictability of rainfall + 0.522
16 Occurrence of Heat waves + 0.018
ADAPTIVE
CAPACITY
1 Restriction on logging and lumbering - 0.741
0.356
2 Agroforestry practices - 0.681
3 Afforestation - 0.302
4 Reforestation - 0.675
5 Watershed management - 0.19
6 Selective tree cutting - 0.391
7 Planting trees for shade - 0.503
8 Use of energy saving stove - 0.024
9 Use of local drip irrigation - 0.69
10 Avoidance of bush burning - 0.241
11 Increasing fallow period - 0.331
12 Incentives for conservation - 0.017
13 Erosion control measures - 0.102
14 Use of resistant varieties of plant species. - 0.097
SENSITIVITY
1 Reduced vegetation cover by living plants + 1.000
0.397
2 Reduced ground cover by litter and plant residues + 0.311
3 Decline in species diversity + 0.418
4 Decline in plant life form composition + 0.271
5 Increase in undesirable plant species (weeds) + 0.190
6 Reduced tree density + 0.851
7 Reduced plant vigor and biomass production + 0.256
8 Increase in invasive species/loss of native species + 0.134
9 Reduced forage production. + 0.657
10 Increase in relative area of bush and shrubs + 0.226
11 Increased plant mortality + 0.118
12 Reduced natural regrowth + 0.632
13 Pest and disease infestation + 0.210
14 Soil compaction + 0.083
15 Change of color of leaves + 0.616
16 The grasses dries up faster + 0.473
17 Drying up of streams and rivers + 0.309
IPCC-Vulnerability Index 0.012
Note: + = Positive functional relationship - = Negative functional relationship; F.R.= Functional Relationship
The Vulnerability indicator assessment results

13. RESULTS Contn’d
Exposure:
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
12345678910111213141516
Indicator index value
Exposure Indicator serial number
Fig. 2: Magnitude of Indicator values for Exposure component

14. RESULTS Contn’d
Fig. 3: Magnitude of Indicator values for Adaptive capacity component
Adaptive capacity:
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
1234567891011121314
Indicator Index value
Adaptive Capacity Indicator serial number

15. RESULTS Contn’d
Sensitivity:
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1234567891011121314151617
Indicator Index value
Sensitivity Indicator serial number
Fig. 4: Magnitude of Indicator values for Sensitivity component

16. RESULTS Contn’d
0.387
0.356
0.397
0.330
0.340
0.350
0.360
0.370
0.380
0.390
0.400
EXPOSURE
ADAPTIVE
CAPACITY
SENSITIVITY
Fig.5: Vulnerability triangle diagram of the contributing factors of the IPCC-VI
for Kpashimi forest reserve and surrounding parkland area

17. CONCLUSION
The calculated overall IPCC- Vulnerability Index was 0.012
which denotes moderately vulnerable condition.

The IPCC- VI becoming positive means the ecosystem is
more exposed to climate extremes and variability than it
has capacity to adapt or overcome those adverse
situations.

Consequently, ecological threshold may soon be exceeded
and ecological resilience undermined .

18. RECOMMENDATION

Diversification and extension of protected areas;

Maintaining ecological structure and processes at all levels
and reducing existing pressure on natural ecosystems;

Monitoring to evaluate species and ecosystems stability
from climate change perspective.

Reformation of existing vegetation management activities so
as to maximize climate change mitigation and adaptation
opportunities.

Further, priority must be placed on assessing future climate
conditions which impact the most vulnerable species.

19. Thank you
for listening